What is the State which is thus exalted above all rivals? Le_Freedom In Service Six Essays on Matters Concerning Britain's Safety and Good Government

Bernard Bosanquet answer. "The State," he says, "is not merely the

political fabric. The term 'State' accents indeed the political aspect

of the whole, and is opposed to the notion of an anarchic society. But

it includes the entire hierarchy of institutions by which life is

determined, from the family to the trade, and from the trade to the

church and the university. It includes all of them, not as the mere

collection of the growths of the country, but as the structures which

give life and meaning to the political whole, while receiving from it

mutual adjustment, and therefore expansion and a more liberal air."[51]

In a similar strain T. H. Green says: "The State is for its members, the

society of societies, the society in which all their claims upon each

other are mutually adjusted."[52] The keynote of both of these profound

utterances is "adjustment." They recognize the fact that the convictions

and opinions of individuals differ, that the purposes of parties

conflict, that the interests of racial units and social classes diverge

from one another, that the demands of churches are mutually

irreconcilable. They recognize further that unless individuals, parties,

races, classes, churches agree in acknowledging the adjusting authority

of the general will of the community to which all belong, endless

struggle and hopeless chaos must supervene. No pretension is made that

the State is of supernatural origin; no claim to divine right is

advanced. It is admitted that the State at one time did not exist. It is

foreseen that a day may come when it will be merged in a still larger

community. But for the present it is the only possible organ by means of

which the common will can operate in the interests of the common good.

The basis of its claim for obedience rests upon the facts, first, that

every individual subject, and every organized group of subjects, owes to

the State, and to it alone, the conditions that make existence possible,

and secondly, that only as a member of the State can the individual

attain to his full development, and only under the protection of the

State can the group achieve its purposes. The attainment of the common

good, as that good is conceived of by the common intelligence, and by

means which the common will determines--such is the ideal of the

Democratic National State. Here surely is a sphere in which every man

can find the fullness of life.

FOOTNOTES:

[51] Bosanquet. _Philosophical Theory of the State_, p. 150.

[52] Green. _Principles of Political Obligation_, p. 146.

IV. THE SPHERE OF NATIONAL SERVICE

The above statement of the ideal of the Democratic National State brings

home to the mind a realization of the magnitude of the sphere which lies

open to National Service in the broad sense of the term. Democracy is

sovereign; although it is flouted by individuals, deluded and debauched

by parties, and challenged by separatist syndicates. It must remain

sovereign, and its sovereignty must be made a more real, more conscious,

and more effective thing than it has ever been before. Rarely, however,

has there been a sovereign less adequately equipped than democracy for

its gigantic responsibilities. One of its most enthusiastic modern

supporters, Professor John MacCunn, gravely admits that "Democracy,

still raw to its work, whether in politics or industry, may blunder--may

blunder fatally."[53] Long ago it was pointed out by Plato that

democracy is the cult of incompetence. In more recent times Mill has

emphasized the possibility that democracy may govern badly and

oppressively; Maine has warned us that the dominance of the commonalty

may end in the triumph of the mediocre, and a more than Chinese

stagnation; Carlyle has denounced democracy as powerful for destruction,

but impotent for building up, as helpless in the face of great

emergencies, as incapable of choosing good leaders; Lecky has

demonstrated the danger of the corruption of the democracy by evil

politicians; Belloc has shown how it tends to develop, and then become a

slave to, a bureaucracy; Graham Wallas has portrayed the psychological

peril of its hypnotization by colours and claptrap. All the dangers thus

enumerated are real and formidable. They have, however, to be faced and

overcome by men of goodwill: for there is now no alternative to

democracy but anarchy. Fortunately they may be faced in confidence and

hope. For the British democracy--as the revealing crisis of this great

war has shown--is sound at heart, is eager to be delivered from its

betrayers, and is longing to learn. It calls pathetically for those who

know to teach it, and for those who can to lead it. Here, then, is the

sphere of National Service. Who will not come forward to help democracy

to become conscious of its power and its dignity; to aid it in

establishing its authority over all rebels and rivals; to teach it how

to use its omnipotence gently, so as to leave to those beneath its sway

the largest possible room for freedom consistent with the common good;

to make it aware of its responsibilities for its vast dominions across

the seas and their teeming populations; to awaken it to a realization of

the extent to which the whole future of the human race rests upon the

success of its experiment in government? It is in the service of such a

sovereign as this, and in the pursuit of such an ideal, that faithful

souls attain that self-realization which is perfect freedom.

FOOTNOTE:

[53] MacCunn. _Six Radical Thinkers_, p. 69.

GARDEN CITY PRESS LTD., LETCHWORTH, ENGLAND

What is the State which is thus exalted above all rivals? Let Mr.